196 comments:

Shariah (literally, “the path to the watering place”) is a central concept in Islam. It is God’s law, as derived from the Koran and the example of the Prophet Muhammad, and has far wider application than secular law. It is popularly associated with its most extreme application in societies like Afghanistan under the Taliban, including chopping off a hand as punishment for thievery.But, that “…far wider application than secular law” represents NO threat, so sirree….. “In the hands of terrorists, Shariah can be developed into a highly threatening, militant notion,” Professor Weiss said. “In the hands of a contemporary Muslim thinker writing in the journal Religion and Law, Shariah becomes an essentially pacifist notion

Except for the Muslim Moderates here and in Europe, who, when speaking before foreign audiences, in Arabic, say things like, “Stone gays”……because they are so moderate, in America and the minority, but when they take the mask off they aren’t so moderate.

This whole Sharia law thing is a joke, except an entire religious minority in the US suffers outright discrimination. It's sad in today's age.

Have you ever actually been to the middle east, Dose? I would accept take any country that you've actually trod in anywhere in the world where Sharia is set up as a separate (if not the primary) legal system. First-hand experience with such is quite telling.

there is no more hatred and violence there than people like the FFA and other crazy-ass christian groups.

Yeah because Christains blew up the Empire State Building..oh wait…well they rioted when “P!ss Chr!st” was exhibited…oh wait…Well they ARE crazy and violent, so there!

This whole Sharia law thing is a joke, except an entire religious minority in the US suffers outright discrimination. It's sad in today's agePlease demonstrate this “Discrimination”…be thorough, show all your work, provide citations, please.

It's a religion, so its "how to live your life" type things. Don't be silly

Oh OK, so I can now re-impose the Abortion Ban, because it’s “how I live my life?” Baptists can ban drinking and dancing in your home town, because it’s how they live their lives?

See also, anti-islamic laws in the south, numerous documented attacks on American "muslims" post 9/11 (even though some werent muslims), a massive media campagin against them, serious political candidate for office requiring them swear an additional oath, or refusing to hire them at all, denial of a permit to construct their buildings entirely because of its religious concept. I mean...are you honestly going to claim they face NO discrimination today?

Oh OK, so I can now re-impose the Abortion Ban, because it’s “how I live my life?” Baptists can ban drinking and dancing in your home town, because it’s how they live their lives?

You don't really understand this whole "laws" vs "morality" thing, do you? Like, the bible says dont lie, the fiqh/hadith/qur'an/sunnah says the same. It's not a "law" though. And also, you can be sure those anti-abortion people ARE trying to make that the law.

First off, "Sharia" law does not exist anywhere in the world. Islamic Law is plurastic (meaning there is no set definition of it.

Muslim or Islamic law, both civil and criminal justice as well as regulating individual conduct both personal and moral. The custom-based body of law based on the Quran and the religion of Islam. Because, by definition, Muslim states are theocracies, religious texts are law, the latter distinguished by Islam and Muslims in their application, as sharia or sharia law Based on the Q’uran and the teachings and traditions of Prophet. It is true there are various schools of thought, Hanafi, Maliki, and Salafist, but it is based on Q’uranic teachings…there IS a defintion.

Muslim or Islamic law, both civil and criminal justice as well as regulating individual conduct both personal and moral. The custom-based body of law based on the Quran and the religion of Islam. Because, by definition, Muslim states are theocracies, religious texts are law, the latter distinguished by Islam and Muslims in their application, as sharia or sharia law Based on the Q’uran and the teachings and traditions of Prophet. It is true there are various schools of thought, Hanafi, Maliki, and Salafist, but it is based on Q’uranic teachings…there IS a defintion.

What was that, wikipedia? Sharia law (the path) represents the ideal. One of the very first tenants is that because of the fallability of man, it cannot exist on earth. That "definition" was just awful.

See also, anti-islamic laws in the south, numerous documented attacks on American "muslims" post 9/11 (even though some werent muslims), a massive media campaign against them, serious political candidate for office requiring them swear an additional oath, or refusing to hire them at all, denial of a permit to construct their buildings entirely because of its religious concept. I mean...are you honestly going to claim they face NO discrimination today?

WHAT anti-Islamic laws, in the “South?” The number of “Attacks on Muslims is far lower than the number of attacks on JEWS, post-9/11…what massive media campaign “against Muslims” do you mean news reports of “Jihadi Rage-Boy screaming ‘Death to America’?” Or news reports of Muslims rioting over cartoons? Funny, I thought that was the NEWS….

Oh OK, so I can now re-impose the Abortion Ban, because it’s “how I live my life?” Baptists can ban drinking and dancing in your home town, because it’s how they live their lives?

You don't really understand this whole "laws" vs "morality" thing, do you? Like, the bible says dont lie, the fiqh/hadith/qur'an/sunnah says the same. It's not a "law" though. And also, you can be sure those anti-abortion people ARE trying to make that the law

Funny you chose to not understand the whole Shariah thing do YOU? Shari’a is about making LAW and MORALITY homonyms….No Alcohol, NO Adultery…NO Gays…not just “I don’t agree with your lifestyle” but making them ILLEGAL…Again try harder Does of Inanity.

Quit being a PC drama queen. Sharia is a threat to civil liberties where ever it is practiced . Go live in Saudi Arabia and make your idiot claims about how benign Sharia is. Defend the Nazis while you are at it.

How so, be thorough…show all your work. Simply saying it was “awful” is only an ASSERTION, refuted by saying, “no it wasn’t” now advance a connected set of statements, supported by evidence to prove your point…that’s an argument…it’s not simply saying, “no it’s not” looking expectantly to Stage Left

WHAT anti-Islamic laws, in the “South?” The number of “Attacks on Muslims is far lower than the number of attacks on JEWS, post-9/11…what massive media campaign “against Muslims” do you mean news reports of “Jihadi Rage-Boy screaming ‘Death to America’?” Or news reports of Muslims rioting over cartoons? Funny, I thought that was the NEWS….

You are aware of google right? Just google "anti-sharia law US". There you go. I love how you ask "what media bias" and the cite how some specific examples can be blown out of proportion based on coverage. I mean...read your whole paragraph.

Funny you chose to not understand the whole Shariah thing do YOU? Shari’a is about making LAW and MORALITY homonyms….No Alcohol, NO Adultery…NO Gays…not just “I don’t agree with your lifestyle” but making them ILLEGAL…Again try harder Does of Inanity.

Again, this is factually false. I don't know how to make you understand, but it's literally false.

Quit being a PC drama queen. Sharia is a threat to civil liberties where ever it is practiced . Go live in Saudi Arabia and make your idiot claims about how benign Sharia is. Defend the Nazis while you are at it.

Yawn. Don't waste your breath on so many logical fallacies at once. You are just wasting your time. Should go here: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ first next time.

How so, be thorough…show all your work. Simply saying it was “awful” is only an ASSERTION, refuted by saying, “no it wasn’t” now advance a connected set of statements, supported by evidence to prove your point…that’s an argument…it’s not simply saying, “no it’s not” looking expectantly to Stage Left

You make a good point I didn't do a good job of attacking that definition, but short of pointing to you a text on islamic law and sharia (not the definitions that have popped up since it became a right wing cause celebre), I don't know what to do to show you.

I'm sure your experience living in an occupied nation with laws drafted by the United States is a great representative example of Islam Ted.

All of your knowledge about living under contemporary Islamic rule is second-hand, Dose. Do you admit that? Or are you actually suggesting that there's no such thing as Islamic rule as well?

My impression here is that you're doing the ivory tower thing, but as I've got no idea of your experience, I can't be sure. It certainly seems like you've never visited a country that's run by Islamic sectarians.

ActuallyYou are aware of google right? Just google "anti-sharia law US". There you go. I love how you ask "what media bias" and the cite how some specific examples can be blown out of proportion based on coverage. I mean...read your whole paragraph

1) YOU make the assertion, YOU “Bing” and provide the evidence, not my job;2) Anti-Shari’a Laws are NOT anti-Muslim laws nor discriminatory against Muslims.Funny you chose to not understand the whole Shariah thing do YOU? Shari’a is about making LAW and MORALITY homonyms….No Alcohol, NO Adultery…NO Gays…not just “I don’t agree with your lifestyle” but making them ILLEGAL…Again try harder Does of Inanity.

Again, this is factually false. I don't know how to make you understand, but it's literally false

No it is ILLEGAL to drink in Saudi Arabia…Adultery is ILLEGAL…being gay is ILLEGAL…it is FACTUALLY true, I don’t understand how you an turn the facts upon their heads.

Finally you make a distinction that is NO distinction…”Well that’s Saudi CIVIL law, not Shari’a” well as far as the Saudis are concerned they are ONE AND THE SAME…your’s is a variant of the “No True Scotsman Argument” you will simply keep saying that’s NOT real Shari’a…even though its purveyors would disagree.

Also interesting how, in such discussion someone ALWAYS brings in Hitler and McVeigh as examples of 'christians' doing bad things. You know, the two athiests who somehow become Christian when this argument is desired?

1. How are anti-sharia laws not anti-muslim? That seems to specifically target a religion and prohibit many of their rights to me.

2. Are you upset that my sources actually exist? If you are attacking me for "not proving my point", you should make sure it doesn't take less than 1 second of work to prove it. If I said the sky is blue, I don't need to link a picture of the sky for it to be true. If you want to say "your argument is false", you should make sure it is, first.

3. No it is ILLEGAL to drink in Saudi Arabia…Adultery is ILLEGAL…being gay is ILLEGAL…it is FACTUALLY true, I don’t understand how you an turn the facts upon their heads.

Finally you make a distinction that is NO distinction…”Well that’s Saudi CIVIL law, not Shari’a” well as far as the Saudis are concerned they are ONE AND THE SAME…your’s is a variant of the “No True Scotsman Argument” you will simply keep saying that’s NOT real Shari’a…even though its purveyors would disagree.

A nation-states criminal and civil laws, are not the same as Islamic Law. As mentioned by me previously, it is a plurastic system so there is no set code/laws. The fact that some things are criminalized (drinking/gays/ec) is probably more representative of the people/state than of the religion. See also: US prohibition, anti-sodomy laws. Don't take the moral high ground when less than 100 years ago, we had identical or similar laws.

What a narrow lens. Also...way to completely miss the point. It's not a competition between religious for most/least violent.

-------------

Hmmmm, when considering the scale of a problem, it really does make sense to compare/contrast between things that are fringe and things that are mainstream.

Christian fundamentalist violence is the fringe of the fringe. Islamic fundamentalist violence is mainstream, codified by law in most Muslim majority countries. I hear that these types of laws are often refered to as "Sharia", the thing you insist does not exist.

...Although there is much in the history of America’s wars with the Barbary pirates that is of direct relevance to the current “war on terror,” one aspect seems particularly instructive to informing our understanding of contemporary Islamic terrorists. Very simply put, the Barbary pirates were committed, militant Muslims who meant to do exactly what they said.

Take, for example, the 1786 meeting in London of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the Tripolitan ambassador to Britain. As American ambassadors to France and Britain respectively, Jefferson and Adams met with Ambassador Adja to negotiate a peace treaty and protect the United States from the threat of Barbary piracy.

These future United States presidents questioned the ambassador as to why his government was so hostile to the new American republic even though America had done nothing to provoke any such animosity. Ambassador Adja answered them, as they reported to the Continental Congress, “that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

Actually,my mission while in Karbala was working with civil, religious and tribal leaders to restore civil order after SaddM fell. The howsa, which were the religious "police" was a fact of life there. Still are I bet.

Your dismissal and deniial of what I witnessed daily is to be willfully blind and a sucker for Islamist propaganda posing as "coursework". It's like saying Stalin was OK and I know this because I took a class on him.

A nation-states criminal and civil laws, are not the same as Islamic Law.

Hysterical.

From the US Department of State:

Saudi Arabia is a monarchy ruled by a king chosen from and by members of the Al Saud family. The king rules through royal decrees issued in conjunction with the Council of Ministers, and with advice from the Consultative Council. The king appoints members of both councils. Islamic law is the basis of the authority of the monarchy and provides the foundation of the country's conservative customs and social practices.

A nation-states criminal and civil laws, are not the same as Islamic Law

Argument by Definition then, the No True Scotsman Fallacy…Saudi Arabia believes it is enforcing SHARI’A, but because it’s a nation-stae, in your argment, only definition then, it is NOT…talk about epic logic fails…..

Don't take the moral high ground when less than 100 years ago, we had identical or similar laws.

...in which Dose jumps the shark and I'm through taking him seriously. Have fun with the rest of this thread. You're academic experiences have made you woefully unprepared for the real world and how it actually works. Shocker.

A nation-states criminal and civil laws, are not the same as Islamic Law. As mentioned by me previously, it is a plurastic system so there is no set code/laws. The fact that some things are criminalized (drinking/gays/ec) is probably more representative of the people/state than of the religion. See also: US prohibition, anti-sodomy laws. Don't take the moral high ground when less than 100 years ago, we had identical or similar laws.

-------------

You seriously don't know what the word pluralistic means. Your use of that word does not fit any accepted definition.

You seem to be saying that Islamic law vsries in the way it is applied, but you give no examples of a positive and non-barbaric version of Sharia, so that hardly seems comforting. Sure, there are differences from one Sharia system to another, but who cares? Is there more good than evil in any of those systems? No.

1. How are anti-sharia laws not anti-muslim? That seems to specifically target a religion and prohibit many of their rights to me. So if they feel they have a right to Hoour killings, or they have a RIGHT to a different set of contract law, my denying them this is a violation of their RIGHTS? No, we are saying, that the US/Oklahoma Civil/Criminal Code(s) applies to EVERYONE, NO EXCEPTIONS….I guess nazi’s feel discriminated against as do Klansmen, in that they don’t get to exercise their Yhwh-Given rights as well….

2. Are you upset that my sources actually exist? If you are attacking me for "not proving my point", you should make sure it doesn't take less than 1 second of work to prove it. If I said the sky is blue, I don't need to link a picture of the sky for it to be true. If you want to say "your argument is false", you should make sure it is, first

You assert, YOU prove…not my job to do your leg work for you…if it’s only a second; use YOUR second provide a listing…thank you.

Argument by Definition then, the No True Scotsman Fallacy…Saudi Arabia believes it is enforcing SHARI’A, but because it’s a nation-stae, in your argment, only definition then, it is NOT…talk about epic logic fails…..

This is not a "No True Scotsman" argument. I've been very clear from the beginning that by defition Sharia law cannot exist on earth.

Careful definitions are not the same as crafting definitions to exclude unwanted items that would fall within that definition.

Nice try.

Also, please more Ad Hominem attacks on me for "not having real world experience." (noting that none of you know me at all) Clearly that makes my point wrong.

Dose: "The fact that some things are criminalized (drinking/gays/ec) is probably more representative of the people/state than of the religion."

Isn't it the case, however, that such laws come explicitly from the people/state's reliance on Islam and the Koran for the values supporting those laws? Isn't it also a bit odd to argue that the "people" in Islamic countries have much say in those laws, given that the countries are dictatorships, run by the worst kind of despots?

Dose is parroting the pro-Islam propaganda course material that is disseminated by CAIR to schools to white wash Islams intolerant nature. Lots of Soviet style "moral equivalence" arguments. Omplete with outright lies and the usual leftwing claim to racist oppression of Muslims by "Amerikkka" in order to garner sympathy from dupes like Dose.

I haven't lied once. Again, laws of a nation state are not the laws of a religion (even if they source to those laws).

No one has refuted the fact that islam is a plurastic religion and indeed you cannot say "sharia" because it simply does not exist.

------------

You don't know what the word pluralistic means. Stop using it.

And stop playing semantic games. You have many times already used the term "Islamic Law" as a catch all for the varying legal codes based on the Koranic principles. That is Sharia. It doesn't matter whether you call it this or call it that, the idea is the same.

@Jay, @Joe - I know its wikipedia, but its quick source example for you.

The Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) was the provisional government of Iraq from July 13, 2003 to June 1, 2004. It was established by and served under the United States-led Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). The IGC consisted of various Iraqi political, religious, and tribal leaders who were appointed by the CPA to provide advice and leadership of the country until the June 2004 transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqi Interim Government (which was replaced in May 2005 by the Iraqi Transitional Government, which was then replaced the following year by the first permanent government).

The Transitional National Assembly, which was elected in January 2005 pursuant to the Coalition Provisional Authority's Transitional Administrative Law

And stop playing semantic games. You have many times already used the term "Islamic Law" as a catch all for the varying legal codes based on the Koranic principles. That is Sharia. It doesn't matter whether you call it this or call it that, the idea is the same.

Plurastic: Having multiple aspects or parts: "the idea that intelligence is a pluralistic quality that ... varies in many dimensions among individuals" (Richard A. Knox).

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)This is not a "No True Scotsman" argument. I've been very clear from the beginning that by defition Sharia law cannot exist on earth

So you are just using ARGUMENT BY DEFINITION…which IS the No True Scotsman Fallacy, because BY DEFINITION, no True Scotsman would believe X…Because Shari’a CANNOT exist on Earth it DOES NOT exist on Earth, and any evidence advanced demonstrating it is, by definition false, because it canNOT exist…hence No True Scotsman Believes….

Plurastic: Having multiple aspects or parts: "the idea that intelligence is a pluralistic quality that ... varies in many dimensions among individuals" (Richard A. Knox).

I think perhaps it is you who does not know what this word means?

-------------

Now please tie the definition you've found with the idea that a concept cannot exist because it varies amongst people, and when you've figured out you're talking nonsense and misusing the word, smack yourself a few times for being an idiot.

So you are just using ARGUMENT BY DEFINITION…which IS the No True Scotsman Fallacy, because BY DEFINITION, no True Scotsman would believe X…Because Shari’a CANNOT exist on Earth it DOES NOT exist on Earth, and any evidence advanced demonstrating it is, by definition false, because it canNOT exist…hence No True Scotsman Believes….

That's close to what "no true scotsmen" is. No true scotsmen first assumes the definition of what a scotsmen is, then you reduce out the scotsmen you don't want included by saying "no true scotsmen would".

Now, you think you know what sharia is and you attempt to include things which are not within the definition. Instead, sharia law, the "perfect" path, does not exist. Only god knows it. Instead, you have many schools and many viewpoints espousing what they believe to be sharia. This is done through Fiqh and Fatwa and various other legal devices. In Islam, if you arrive at the correct legal answer and follow it, you are rewarded twice in heaven. If you come to the incorrect legal conclusion, but do so honestly, you receive one reward in heaven.

All scholars must note that they could be wrong each time they issue a fatwa or fiqh. Indeed, it wasn't until the british empire attempted to codify this plurastic system that we started to see nation states with these "islamic laws".

By it's very definition, Sharia law doesn't exist on earth. Islamic law via fiqhs does exist. laws of nation states do exist. They are not the same.

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)"I did some course work on it" is a bad way to project knowledge of a subject

It’s appeal to Authority…I have a PhD, ergo I must be right….I took a class on the subject, I must be right…

Dose saying you took a class on it doesn’t MEAN anything about the “truth” of your statements…I’ve never taken a class on Shari’a, but that doesn’t mean I don’t have an understanding of the subject, and the only way to “win” is to attack the argument or evidence, not simply that you have or have not taken a class…Sgt Ted isn’t right because s/he’s “been there” but s/he may be correct, because his/her experience is TRUE…I don[‘t accord you or Sgt. Ted any greater weight because of your claims of authority, but try to weigh your evidence…

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)By it's very definition, Sharia law doesn't exist on earth

Assertion AND Definition….I believe the Saudi’s OR the Iranian Guardian Council would tell you that they are enforcing Shari’a…you simply negate that by saying it CANNOT exist…you further assert that it does not exist, even though there are a number of nations and tribes employing and enforcing the very thing you say cannot exist….It is now pointless to debate you because you have simply walled yourself in the Fortress of belief…There is no Allah, but Allah…we cannot argue beyond this, because you have asserted Shari’a cannot exist, there is no Allah, but Allah…and hence no evidence or argument is of any value, because you no longer are debating, you are ASSERTING….

"First off, "Sharia" law does not exist anywhere in the world. Islamic Law is plurastic (meaning there is no set definition of it)."

Never let it be said that the left does not believe in recycling: this is merely the 'true communism has never been tried' trope that the left has passed off on college students for decades.

And it's just silly that you cite the fact that there is no single authority defining the precise parameters of sharia as proof it does not exist. I'm sure you will agree that Protestantism exists, despite its likewise having no central authority to define what is and is not Protestant Christianity.

"A secret, muslim plan to take down america? What!?"

The desire is no secret, being openly declared in the Friday prayers of many Islamic nations. There's no single 'plan' except for the broad-based cultural propaganda and 'lawfare' campaign of the Muslim Brotherhood and similar organizations.

Your saying that there is no Sharia on Earth since it does not exist here in it's perfect form. Which, even if a person were to believe that, does not by any means mean that Sharia does not exist.

At the end of the day, you merely seem to be trying to sow confusion in the discussion.

Just trying to be precise, sorry if it is confusing. Sharia includes the caveat it does not exist on Earth. My argument thus is because it by definition cannot exist on earth, no one can enforce it. Do you see what I mean?

I think such America-loving Muslims exist, but they are deeply conflicted by what their religion teaches and what a free nation does. This is true to some extent for Christians too. But, Christianity has had a much longer and robust period of adjusting and reforming to that in Europe and here.

It's also a fact that Islam has some very clear and strict taboos against not following the law. It doesn't say God will deal with you later, it says we will deal with you here and now. That's all the difference in the world to us here and now.

I feel for Muslim Americans, not because they are being discriminated against (I think that's minor), but because they have an irreconcilable conflict in what they want to believe. We all have some of that, but they got it bad. IMHO

Your saying that there is no Sharia on Earth since it does not exist here in it's perfect form. Which, even if a person were to believe that, does not by any means mean that Sharia does not exist.

At the end of the day, you merely seem to be trying to sow confusion in the discussion.

Just trying to be precise, sorry if it is confusing. Sharia includes the caveat it does not exist on Earth. My argument thus is because it by definition cannot exist on earth, no one can enforce it. Do you see what I mean?

------------

That is a religious assertion and so cannot be "by definition", but regarless we are not looking from the perspective of Islamic scholars. We are looking at the differing systems labeled by their followers as "Sharia" as they exist on earth.

You say what I saw was "unIslamic" yet the howsa was acting on authority granted by local Imams and blessed by the highest Shia Ayatollah living in Iraq. You are being fed a load of bullshit in your "coursework".

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)I'm just saying that's not sharia. It may not even be "islamic

If I am a Muslim, and 75-90% of Muslims agree I am one, then, it IS Islamic…and if some 50-60% of Imams would agree that what I am doing is in accord with Shari’a Law, then it is Shari’a…

You might take a class on Christianity…it probably won’t be as much an epiphany, because everyone Knows about THOSE people”…but focus on the Nicene Creed. MOST Christians use the Nicene Creed as their Profession of Faith, quibbling over the Filioque . Now all Christians may not agree upon the Authority of the Pope/Bishop of Rome, but they DO agree on the Creed…so there is BOTH Dispute and Agreement within Christianity about the definition of what it is to be “Christian” So too, Islam, that many clerics might argue about details, doesn’t mean that there isn’t also much agreement about what it is to be Muslim and what it is to enforce Shari’a.

Dose of Sanity, do the Sunni and Shi'a sects exist, despite being "pluralistic"?

Of course they exist. However you cannot enforce "sunni law" or "shi'a(shiite?) law" either. Your first question would have to be "what are the shi'a laws".

Just like if you ask "what is shari'a law" you have no set definition, only guesses.

------------

What the fuck.

Why would you ask "what is sunni law" without going through the question "what is sunni" first? What makes Sunni a more certain concept than Sunni law? Holy shit this is so ridiculous trying to communicate with you.

That is a religious assertion and so cannot be "by definition", but regarless we are not looking from the perspective of Islamic scholars. We are looking at the differing systems labeled by their followers as "Sharia" as they exist on earth.

Okay, I understand you/they are using incorrect definitions.

Pulling back as to why that matters: There is no set islamic law - every country that "claims to be sharia" as you say, does it differently. Are you starting to see why there simply cannot be some secret Jihad against the US?

Why would you ask "what is sunni law" without going through the question "what is sunni" first? What makes Sunni a more certain concept than Sunni law? Holy shit this is so ridiculous trying to communicate with you.

Sorry, I made a logical leap there, it must have been too much for you. I'll slow it down.

We were talking about the implementation of a concept as law. When asked about two seperate concepts, I simply moved to explaining why those concepts also couldn't be set forth concretely either.

Also, to answer my question you would have to understand what a Sunni/Shia was.

Don't get mad, please. Do take time and read my posts. I promise you I read yours and if you are right, I'll happily acknowledge it. I'm okay with being wrong - everyone should be.

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)think such America-loving Muslims exist, but they are deeply conflicted by what their religion teaches and what a free nation does. This is true to some extent for Christians too. But, Christianity has had a much longer and robust period of adjusting and reforming to that in Europe and here

I once read something about Islamism and its appeal…Islamists APPEAR more devout…I mean they’re praying, they are living by a strict code, they are preaching, speaking out…and so, to the young, it APPEARS they are “more Islamic” than their parents. The fact that they are ranting and spouting nonsense isn’t as often apparent, to the young…so it has an appeal.

It’s like those Evangelical Christians you can find on college campi’i…they APPEAR more devout than your parents….now they may be spouting arrant nonsense, based on a skewed interpretation of their very own version of the Bible, but to the young they appear to be more devout…..

Pulling back as to why that matters: There is no set islamic law - every country that "claims to be sharia" as you say, does it differently. Are you starting to see why there simply cannot be some secret Jihad against the US?

--------

Concepts can be implemented differently. Concepts can have fuzzy boundaries. You are a 4 year old.

Show me a system of Sharia that is not a barbaric and backwards set of laws and you might actually make a point that has some relevance in the real world.

“This whole Sharia law thing is a joke, except an entire religious minority in the US suffers outright discrimination. It's sad in today's age. It's a religion, so its "how to live your life" type things. Don't be silly.”

BUt, all religions (or even all monotheisms) are not equally compatible with a secular, liberal democratic state.

For example: Jews do not proselytize, and thus would seem to offer the least political threat to any liberal secular state.

Christians do proselytize, but they also have that “render unto Caesar quote directly from their Savior. It hasn’t always been honored, but even during the Middle Ages (when the authority of the Church was far greater than today), the Pope was the Pope and the King was the King and they mostly retained separate spheres of authority.

Yet there is little such history and no scriptural support for a similar separation of religion and politics within Islam.

To what extent are all Muslims committed to establishing a Caliphate? Are many simply opposed, or are there just differences in how this might be achieved (i.e., democratic means vs. violence)? If the answer is, “Even moderates are not opposed,” then is it simply bigoted to ask whether our civil freedoms would still exist if the USA were majority-Muslim? What if it were 20%, or 35%?

Do Muslims find it more difficult to separate religion from political authority than adherents of other religions? If so, we could still say it doesn’t really matter so long as Muslims are 5% or 10% of the population. But, that’s hardly a real (or realistic) answer.

Or, instead of raising difficult questions, shall we just smother all discussion with suffocating PC and excoriate anyone and everyone who even raises such questions.

@SP You are using Islamic Law and Sharia interchangable. I'm not. Can you read my previous posts before calling me 4 years old. If you don't understand why I say sharia doesn't exist on earth by definition, you can ask again honestly.

If you want an islamic country that is more "pro-democracy" you can look to the UAE. I'm hoping Egypt manages to come out more democractic as well, but those guys have a tough fight ahead of them. (As do the other arab spring countries)

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)I'm hoping Egypt manages to come out more democractic as well, but those guys have a tough fight ahead of them

Yeah depending on your definition of “democracy” I guess…IF by democracy you mean something akin to Alabama, not likely considering that he Salafists and Ikhwan Muslimeen will have a majority in the new Parliament…IF by “democracy” you mean something where an elected majority has its way, then Yes, Egypt will be a democracy….of course it’s going to suck being a Copt or even a Shi’i in such an Egyptian Democracy.

@ Joe - That's very true. It's been heartening to see pictures of young Copts and muslims protecting each other during the protests, but whether that good will will last is another story.

Indeed the tyranny of the majority is a problem we battle here, today, after over 200 years of trying to prevent it.

(As an aside: I was saw a speech and talked with a monk who had travelled to be a Coptic monk. They do some absolutely facisinating things so far out in the desert. Very strict society though! I think he had a book...but I cant find the title now.)

I have no "real world" experience on this topic. That doesn't make me incapable of forming arguments on the subject.

It also, apparently, doesn't do much in the way for hubris from your point of view. I tend to defer to others, especially a crowd of others, telling me they have real-world experience on a topic at hand. You're dismissive of such.

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)Indeed the tyranny of the majority is a problem we battle here, today, after over 200 years of trying to prevent it

Tell me about it…I mean those Gays, representing a whole 2-3% of the Populace demanding marriage rights is sure an example of the Tyranny of the Majority….Puh-leeeze it is much more the Tyranny of the MINORITY in this nation….

A nation-states criminal and civil laws, are not the same as Islamic Law. As mentioned by me previously, it is a plurastic system so there is no set code/laws. The fact that some things are criminalized (drinking/gays/ec) is probably more representative of the people/state than of the religion.

Except in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the people running those country's say that those things are criminalized because of Islam.

That is a fact.

You dispute this fact while asserting:

I've learned a lot about Sharia law recently, I consider myself to at least have some working knowledge of it. More than 99% of Americans.

Except in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the people running those country's say that those things are criminalized because of Islam. That doesn't necessarily make it Islamic and absolutely doesn't make it Sharia. (It probably is based in islamic law, to be clear on that point)

Which of course is laughable.

Arrogant, petulant, annoying and full of condescension, but also probably factual true. :/ I hate when I came off as an ass though, which I definitely did. My sincere apologies.

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)Lovely logic, I'm sure 2-3% should be excluded from equal access to the laws because its "tyranny" for them to be equal

Well if we allow you to LIVE (Toleration) we’ve done what needs doing, we don’t have to ACCEPT…but it’s funny you might feel that Muslims are discriminated against and worry about gays, but not connect what would be the consequences of Muslims in the MAJORITY for Gays….so no I don’t have to accept Gay marriage…I just have to accord Gays a right to live, assemble, speak, and petition.

Hello Dose! It's not a 'secret' plan to impose Islamic Law on us. It has been openly proclaimed. Y'all need to do some more coursework.

Also, would you agree that our government is of the type described as a 'republic'? If you say 'yes', then how do you reconcile the many different examples of 'republics' that we see in history? Was the republic of Rome the same as the republic of Venice? Or would you say 'no', because no historical republic measures up to your Platonic ideal of 'republic'? Sharia is sharia. The actual need not wait on the perfect for validation.

@David - Yes, our government is a republic. No, Islamic Law and Sharia are not interchangable terms.

"Openly proclaiming" they want to change the laws in our land!? gasp! Oh wait, it's a democracy, thats what we do. My point is there is no shadow muslim authority with a "sharia code" ready to implement here. It's just fear mongering. Relax. Sleep at night, the big bad muslim isnt out to get you no matter what Fox News has told you.

Dose of Sanity needs a dose of sanity. Like all Libtards they think Amerikkka is the root of all things in the world evil.

Attention all Islamic apologist!! There is no such thing as a moderate muslim! There are only muslims. Period. Dot. End of sentence!

the only reason you are not living under sharia law right now is because there aren't enough of them to enforce it. Except in Libtard bastions like Dearborn Michigan. It's so free, and religiously tolerant there that christian proselytizers are are arrested.

As for no sharia anywhere in the world, tell it to the Copts in Egypt, or the Indians near the Pakistan border, or the Kurds in Iraq, or the tribes in Darfur.

Heh! Its easy to see why Godzero got the peace prize with these chuckle heads voting. I think if Obama blew up Israel, they'd just vote him Caliph.

(The Crypto Jew)I don't think my education will be that useless...if it is, I will be hurting a lot sooner than thatWhen you look back on your arrogant misinformation you’ll want to kick your own @rse…I know this from personal experience.

OK, Dose, you claim that this nation state concept you're pushing is to blame for the sickening laws in Saudi Arabia, so how about we expand that to include all the majority Muslim countries, like Iran, Libya, Syria, Dubai, UAE, Malaysia, et al.

In all of them, apparently they claim to be, or aim to be, basing their laws on Sharia, which is based on not only the Koran but other religious texts as well. By some utterly unknown coincidence, every one of them has arrived at the same sectarian, nation-state laws concerning the rights of infidels, which includes anyone not a Muslim. All other religions are totally discriminated against, gay behavior is punished, sometimes by death, women are treated as chattel, child marriage is looked upon benignly because Mohammed himself did it, honor killings are excused, a woman needs five males witnesses to prove rape, apostasy and blasphemy are eligible for the death penalty, etc, ad nauseum.

Please tell us the Muslim-majority countries that are allowed to be "diverse" and do not do the above. Perhaps we should just call the purely coincidental basis of their laws "peanut butter" instead, because you claim Sharia does not exist.

I'm sure you met very nice people from the Muslim Brotherhood of America fraternity in your class, and heard very reasonable arguments from the CAIR spokesmouths they brought in to lull you.

But do you ever follow the news from other countries where the daily horrors perpetrated by Muslims are documented, or blogs that document them? Here is one that is a news aggregator of Muslim atrocities:The Religion of Peace

Check out the huge list of terrorist attacks at the bottom of their home page. That list is just for the last two months, and there are proportionally much longer lists by year. Your eyes really need to get opened, but if your mind is closed it won't really make any difference what they see.

Actually, it is possible to make an ally of someone whose ideology one rejects. We allied ourselves with the USSR in WWII. Why isn't it possible to reject Islam while at the same time making alliances with it's more reasonable devotees?